Laserfiche WebLink
Mankato Free Press v.cny of In 1997,the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision <br /> North Mankato,563 N.W.2d z9l and remanded the case back to it for a factual determination on whether the <br /> (Minn.App.1997) <br /> city used the one-on-one interview process in order to avoid the requirements <br /> Mankato Free Press v.city of of the Open Meeting Law.On remand,the district court found that the private <br /> North Mankato,No.C9-98-677 interviews were not conducted for the purpose of avoiding public hearings. <br /> (Mina App.Dec.15,1998) The case was again appealed. In an unpublished decision,the Court of <br /> Appeals agreed. <br /> The implication of this decision appears to be that any action by the council <br /> done with the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the Open Meeting Law <br /> will be deemed to be a violation of the law.Cities that arc considering holding <br /> private interviews with job applicants should consult their city attorney before <br /> doing so. <br /> 3. Executive sessions <br /> A.G.Op.63-A-5(Jun.13,1957) The Attorney General has found that an executive session of a city council <br /> where the public's attendance was prohibited until after the discussion and <br /> deliberations of the council was a violation of the Open Meeting Law. <br /> 4. Committees and liaisons <br /> A.G.Op.10-b(Jul.3,1975) The Attorney General has found that citizens' advisory panels that are <br /> appointed by a governing body are also subject to the open meeting law. <br /> Many city councils create committees to make recommendations to the <br /> council.Commonly,such committees will be responsible for doing research in <br /> a particular area and submitting a recommendation to the council for its <br /> approval.Such committees are usually advisory,and the council is still <br /> responsible for making the fmal decision. <br /> A.G.Op.10-b(Jul.3,1975); The Attorney General has found that a citizens'advisory panel that was <br /> A.G.Op.63a-5(Aug.28,1996) appointed by a governing body was subject to the Open Meeting Law. <br /> However,a 1996 opinion determined that if a committee or department has no <br /> authority to make a decision,it would not be subject to the Open Meeting <br /> Law. <br /> A.G.op.63a-5(Aug.28,1996); City councils routinely appoint individual councilmembers to act as liaisons <br /> between the council and particular committees.These types of meetings may <br /> Sovereign v.Duna,498N.W.2d also be subject to the Open Meeting Law if the committee contains a quorum <br /> 62(Minn.App.1993) or more of the council or has decision-making authority.In addition,there <br /> may be notice needed for a special council meeting if a quorum of the council <br /> will be present at the meeting and participating in the discussion. <br /> A.G.Op.471-e(May 23,1978) The Attorney General found that a private discussion between one <br /> councilmember and one HRA member was not a violation of the Open <br /> Meeting Law because a quorum of neither body was present. <br /> 22 League of Minnesota Cities <br />